+ <item>
+Make sure that your <tt>Build-Depends</tt> and
+<tt>Build-Depends-Indep</tt> settings in <file>debian/control</file>
+are set properly. The best way to validate this is to use the
+<package>debootstrap</package> package to create an unstable chroot
+environment (see <ref id="debootstrap">).
+Within that chrooted environment, install the
+<package>build-essential</package> package and any package
+dependencies mentioned in <tt>Build-Depends</tt> and/or
+<tt>Build-Depends-Indep</tt>. Finally, try building your package
+within that chrooted environment. These steps can be automated
+by the use of the <prgn>pbuilder</prgn> program which is provided by
+the package of the same name (see <ref id="pbuilder">).
+ <p>
+If you can't set up a proper chroot, <prgn>dpkg-depcheck</prgn> may be
+of assistance (see <ref id="dpkg-depcheck">).
+ <p>
+See the <url id="&url-debian-policy;" name="Debian Policy
+Manual"> for instructions on setting build dependencies.
+ <item>
+Don't set architecture to a value other than ``all'' or ``any'' unless
+you really mean it. In too many cases, maintainers don't follow the
+instructions in the <url id="&url-debian-policy;" name="Debian Policy
+Manual">. Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect.
+ <item>
+Make sure your source package is correct. Do <tt>dpkg-source -x
+<var>package</var>.dsc</tt> to make sure your source package unpacks
+properly. Then, in there, try building your package from scratch with
+<prgn>dpkg-buildpackage</prgn>.
+ <item>
+Make sure you don't ship your source package with the
+<file>debian/files</file> or <file>debian/substvars</file> files.
+They should be removed by the `clean' target of
+<file>debian/rules</file>.
+ <item>
+Make sure you don't rely on locally installed or hacked configurations
+or programs. For instance, you should never be calling programs in
+<file>/usr/local/bin</file> or the like. Try not to rely on programs
+being setup in a special way. Try building your package on another
+machine, even if it's the same architecture.
+ <item>
+Don't depend on the package you're building already being installed (a
+sub-case of the above issue).
+ <item>
+Don't rely on the compiler being a certain version, if possible. If
+not, then make sure your build dependencies reflect the restrictions,
+although you are probably asking for trouble, since different
+architectures sometimes standardize on different compilers.
+ <item>
+Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and
+``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Policy Manual requires.
+Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you can
+call the target without having called the other before. To test this,
+try to run <tt>dpkg-buildpackage -B</tt>.
+ </enumlist>
+
+
+ <sect1 id="porter-guidelines">Guidelines for porter uploads
+ <p>
+If the package builds out of the box for the architecture to be ported
+to, you are in luck and your job is easy. This section applies to
+that case; it describes how to build and upload your binary package so
+that it is properly installed into the archive. If you do have to
+patch the package in order to get it to compile for the other
+architecture, you are actually doing a source NMU, so consult <ref
+id="nmu-guidelines"> instead.
+ <p>
+For a porter upload, no changes are being made to the source. You do
+not need to touch any of the files in the source package. This
+includes <file>debian/changelog</file>.
+ <p>
+The way to invoke <prgn>dpkg-buildpackage</prgn> is as
+<tt>dpkg-buildpackage -B -m<var>porter-email</var></tt>. Of course,
+set <var>porter-email</var> to your email address. This will do a
+binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the
+package, using the `binary-arch' target in <file>debian/rules</file>.
+
+ <sect2 id="binary-only-nmu">
+ <heading>Recompilation or binary-only NMU</heading>
+ <p>
+Sometimes the initial porter upload is problematic because the environment
+in which the package was built was not good enough (outdated or obsolete
+library, bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in
+an updated environment. However, you have to bump the version number in
+this case, so that the old bad package can be replaced in the Debian archive
+(<prgn>katie</prgn> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
+version number greater than the currently available one). Despite the
+required modification of the changelog, these are called binary-only NMUs
+— there is no need in this case to trigger all other architectures
+to consider themselves out of date or requiring recompilation.
+ <p>
+Such recompilations require special ``magic'' version numbering, so that
+the archive maintenance tools recognize that, even though there is a
+new Debian version, there is no corresponding source update. If you
+get this wrong, the archive maintainers will reject your upload (due
+to lack of corresponding source code).
+ <p>
+The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using the
+third-level number on the Debian part of the version. For instance,
+if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
+``2.9-3'', your NMU should carry a version of ``2.9-3.0.1''. If the
+latest version was ``3.4-2.1'', your NMU should have a version number
+of ``3.4-2.1.1''.
+
+
+ <sect2 id="source-nmu-when-porter">
+ <heading>When to do a source NMU if you are a porter</heading>
+ <p>
+Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in
+<ref id="nmu">, just like non-porters. However, it is expected that
+the wait cycle for a porter's source NMU is smaller than for a
+non-porter, since porters have to cope with a large quantity of
+packages.
+Again, the situation varies depending on the distribution they are
+uploading to.
+
+<!--
+FIXME: commented out until I can work out how to upload to testing directly
+
+ Crucial fixes (i.e., changes need to get a source
+package to compile for a released-targeted architecture) can be
+uploaded with <em>no</em> waiting period for the `frozen' distribution.
+ -->
+ <p>
+However, if you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above
+guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations.
+Firstly, the acceptable waiting period — the time between when the
+bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven
+days for porters working on the unstable distribution. This period
+can be shortened if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on
+the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter group. (Remember,
+none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon guidelines.)
+ <p>
+Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they
+submit to the BTS should be of severity `serious' or greater. This
+ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every
+supported Debian architecture by release time. It is very important
+that we have one version of the binary and source package for all
+architecture in order to comply with many licenses.
+ <p>
+Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in
+the current version of the compile environment, kernel, or libc.
+Sometimes such kludges can't be helped. If you have to kludge around
+compilers bugs and the like, make sure you <tt>#ifdef</tt> your work
+properly; also, document your kludge so that people know to remove it
+once the external problems have been fixed.
+ <p>
+Porters may also have an unofficial location where they can put the
+results of their work during the waiting period. This helps others
+running the port have the benefit of the porter's work, even during
+the waiting period. Of course, such locations have no official
+blessing or status, so buyer beware.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="porter-automation">
+ <heading>Porting infrastructure and automation</heading>
+ <p>
+There is infrastructure and several tools to help automate the package
+porting. This section contains a brief overview of this automation and
+porting to these tools; see the package documentation or references for
+full information.</p>
+
+ <sect2>
+ <heading>Mailing lists and web pages</heading>
+ <p>
+Web pages containing the status of each port can be found at <url
+id="&url-debian-ports;">.
+ <p>
+Each port of Debian has a mailing list. The list of porting mailing
+lists can be found at <url id="&url-debian-port-lists;">. These lists
+are used to coordinate porters, and to connect the users of a given
+port with the porters.</p>
+ </sect2>
+
+ <sect2>
+ <heading>Porter tools</heading>
+ <p>
+Descriptions of several porting tools can be found in <ref
+id="tools-porting">.</p>
+ </sect2>
+
+ <sect2 id="buildd">
+ <heading><package>buildd</package></heading>
+ <p>
+The <package>buildd</package> system is used as a distributed,
+client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
+conjunction with <em>auto-builders</em>, which are ``slave'' hosts
+which simply check out and attempt to auto-build packages which need
+to be ported. There is also an email interface to the system, which
+allows porters to ``check out'' a source package (usually one which
+cannot yet be auto-built) and work on it.
+ <p>
+<package>buildd</package> is not yet available as a package; however,
+most porting efforts are either using it currently or planning to use
+it in the near future. The actual automated builder is packaged as
+<package>sbuild</package>, see its description in <ref id="sbuild">.
+The complete <package>buildd</package> system also collects a number of as yet unpackaged
+components which are currently very useful and in use continually,
+such as <prgn>andrea</prgn> and
+<prgn>wanna-build</prgn>.
+ <p>
+Some of the data produced by <package>buildd</package> which is
+generally useful to porters is available on the web at <url
+id="&url-buildd;">. This data includes nightly updated information
+from <prgn>andrea</prgn> (source dependencies) and
+<package>quinn-diff</package> (packages needing recompilation).
+ <p>
+We are quite proud of this system, since it has so
+many possible uses. Independent development groups can use the system for
+different sub-flavors of Debian, which may or may not really be of
+general interest (for instance, a flavor of Debian built with <prgn>gcc</prgn>
+bounds checking). It will also enable Debian to recompile entire
+distributions quickly.
+ </sect2>
+
+
+ <sect id="nmu">Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
+ <p>
+Under certain circumstances it is necessary for someone other than the
+official package maintainer to make a release of a package. This is
+called a non-maintainer upload, or NMU.
+ <p>
+Debian porters, who compile packages for different architectures,
+occasionally do binary-only NMUs as part of their porting activity
+(see <ref id="porting">). Another reason why NMUs are done is when a
+Debian developer needs to fix another developer's packages in order to
+address serious security problems or crippling bugs, especially during
+the freeze, or when the package maintainer is unable to release a fix
+in a timely fashion.
+ <p>
+This chapter contains information providing guidelines for when and
+how NMUs should be done. A fundamental distinction is made between
+source and binary-only NMUs, which is explained in the next section.
+
+ <sect1 id="nmu-terms">Terminology
+ <p>
+There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary-only NMU''
+and ``source NMU''. These terms are used with specific technical
+meaning throughout this document. Both binary-only and source NMUs are
+similar, since they involve an upload of a package by a developer who
+is not the official maintainer of that package. That is why it's a
+<em>non-maintainer</em> upload.
+ <p>
+A source NMU is an upload of a package by a developer who is not the
+official maintainer, for the purposes of fixing a bug in the package.
+Source NMUs always involves changes to the source (even if it is just
+a change to <file>debian/changelog</file>). This can be either a
+change to the upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the
+source. Note, however, that source NMUs may also include
+architecture-dependent packages, as well as an updated Debian diff.
+ <p>
+A binary-only NMU is a recompilation and upload of a binary package
+for a given architecture. As such, it is usually part of a porting
+effort. A binary-only NMU is a non-maintainer uploaded binary version
+of a package, with no source changes required. There are many cases
+where porters must fix problems in the source in order to get them to
+compile for their target architecture; that would be considered a
+source NMU rather than a binary-only NMU. As you can see, we don't
+distinguish in terminology between porter NMUs and non-porter NMUs.
+ <p>
+Both classes of NMUs, source and binary-only, can be lumped by the
+term ``NMU''. However, this often leads to confusion, since most
+people think ``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''. So it's best to
+be careful. In this chapter, if we use the unqualified term ``NMU'',
+we refer to any type of non-maintainer upload NMUs, whether source and
+binary, or binary-only.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="nmu-who">Who can do an NMU
+ <p>
+Only official, registered Debian maintainers can do binary or source
+NMUs. An official maintainer is someone who has their key in the
+Debian key ring. Non-developers, however, are encouraged to download
+the source package and start hacking on it to fix problems; however,
+rather than doing an NMU, they should just submit worthwhile patches
+to the Bug Tracking System. Maintainers almost always appreciate
+quality patches and bug reports.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="nmu-when">When to do a source NMU
+ <p>
+Guidelines for when to do a source NMU depend on the target
+distribution, i.e., stable, unstable, or experimental. Porters have
+slightly different rules than non-porters, due to their unique
+circumstances (see <ref id="source-nmu-when-porter">).
+ <p>
+When a security bug is detected, the security team may do an NMU.
+Please refer to <ref id="bug-security"> for more information.
+ <p>
+During the release cycle (see <ref id="sec-dists">), NMUs which fix
+serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and accepted. Even
+during this window, however, you should endeavor to reach the current
+maintainer of the package; they might be just about to upload a fix
+for the problem. As with any source NMU, the guidelines found in <ref
+id="nmu-guidelines"> need to be followed. Special exceptions are made
+for <ref id="qa-bsp">.
+ <p>
+Uploading bug fixes to unstable by non-maintainers should only be done
+by following this protocol:
+ <p>
+<list>
+ <item>
+Make sure that the package's bugs that the NMU is meant to address are all
+filed in the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS).
+If they are not, submit them immediately.
+ <item>
+Wait a few days for the response from the maintainer. If you don't get
+any response, you may want to help them by sending the patch that fixes
+the bug. Don't forget to tag the bug with the "patch" keyword.
+ <item>
+Wait a few more days. If you still haven't got an answer from the
+maintainer, send them a mail announcing your intent to NMU the package.
+Prepare an NMU as described in <ref id="nmu-guidelines">, test it
+carefully on your machine (cf. <ref id="sanitycheck">).
+Double check that your patch doesn't have any unexpected side effects.
+Make sure your patch is as small and as non-disruptive as it can be.
+ <item>
+Upload your package to incoming in <file>DELAYED/7-day</file> (cf.
+<ref id="delayed-incoming">), send the final patch to the maintainer via
+the BTS, and explain to them that they have 7 days to react if they want
+to cancel the NMU.
+ <item>
+Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced
+with your NMU. You should probably use <ref id="pkg-tracking-system"> (PTS)
+to stay informed of the state of the package after your NMU.
+</list>
+ <p>
+At times, the release manager or an organized group of developers can
+announce a certain period of time in which the NMU rules are relaxed.
+This usually involves shortening the period during which one is to wait
+before uploading the fixes, and shortening the DELAYED period. It is
+important to notice that even in these so-called "bug squashing party"
+times, the NMU'er has to file bugs and contact the developer first,
+and act later.
+
+ <sect1 id="nmu-guidelines">How to do a source NMU
+ <p>
+The following applies to porters insofar as they are playing the dual
+role of being both package bug-fixers and package porters. If a
+porter has to change the Debian source archive, their upload is
+automatically a source NMU and is subject to its rules. If a porter is
+simply uploading a recompiled binary package, the rules are different;
+see <ref id="porter-guidelines">.
+ <p>
+First and foremost, it is critical that NMU patches to source should
+be as non-disruptive as possible. Do not do housekeeping tasks, do
+not change the name of modules or files, do not move directories; in
+general, do not fix things which are not broken. Keep the patch as
+small as possible. If things bother you aesthetically, talk to the
+Debian maintainer, talk to the upstream maintainer, or submit a bug.
+However, aesthetic changes must <em>not</em> be made in a non-maintainer
+upload.
+
+
+ <sect2 id="nmu-version">Source NMU version numbering
+ <p>
+Whenever you have made a change to a package, no matter how trivial,
+the version number needs to change. This enables our packing system
+to function.
+ <p>
+If you are doing a non-maintainer upload (NMU), you should add a new
+minor version number to the <var>debian-revision</var> part of the
+version number (the portion after the last hyphen). This extra minor
+number will start at `1'. For example, consider the package `foo',
+which is at version 1.1-3. In the archive, the source package control
+file would be <file>foo_1.1-3.dsc</file>. The upstream version is
+`1.1' and the Debian revision is `3'. The next NMU would add a new
+minor number `.1' to the Debian revision; the new source control file
+would be <file>foo_1.1-3.1.dsc</file>.
+ <p>
+The Debian revision minor number is needed to avoid stealing one of
+the package maintainer's version numbers, which might disrupt their
+work. It also has the benefit of making it visually clear that a
+package in the archive was not made by the official maintainer.
+ <p>
+If there is no <var>debian-revision</var> component in the version
+number then one should be created, starting at `0.1'. If it is
+absolutely necessary for someone other than the usual maintainer to
+make a release based on a new upstream version then the person making
+the release should start with the <var>debian-revision</var> value
+`0.1'. The usual maintainer of a package should start their
+<var>debian-revision</var> numbering at `1'.
+
+
+ <sect2 id="nmu-changelog">
+ <heading>Source NMUs must have a new changelog entry</heading>
+ <p>
+A non-maintainer doing a source NMU must create a changelog entry,
+describing which bugs are fixed by the NMU, and generally why the NMU
+was required and what it fixed. The changelog entry will have the
+non-maintainer's email address in the log entry and the NMU version
+number in it.
+ <p>
+By convention, source NMU changelog entries start with the line
+<example>
+ * Non-maintainer upload
+</example>
+
+
+ <sect2 id="nmu-patch">Source NMUs and the Bug Tracking System
+ <p>
+Maintainers other than the official package maintainer should make as
+few changes to the package as possible, and they should always send a
+patch as a unified context diff (<tt>diff -u</tt>) detailing their
+changes to the Bug Tracking System.
+ <p>
+What if you are simply recompiling the package? If you just need to
+recompile it for a single architecture, then you may do a binary-only
+NMU as described in <ref id="binary-only-nmu"> which doesn't require any
+patch to be sent. If you want the package to be recompiled for all
+architectures, then you do a source NMU as usual and you will have to
+send a patch.
+ <p>
+If the source NMU (non-maintainer upload) fixes some existing bugs,
+these bugs should be tagged <em>fixed</em> in the Bug Tracking
+System rather than closed. By convention, only the official package
+maintainer or the original bug submitter are allowed to close bugs.
+Fortunately, Debian's archive system recognizes NMUs and thus marks
+the bugs fixed in the NMU appropriately if the person doing the NMU
+has listed all bugs in the changelog with the <tt>Closes:
+bug#<var>nnnnn</var></tt> syntax (see <ref id="upload-bugfix"> for
+more information describing how to close bugs via the changelog).
+Tagging the bugs <em>fixed</em> ensures that everyone knows that the
+bug was fixed in an NMU; however the bug is left open until the
+changes in the NMU are incorporated officially into the package by
+the official package maintainer.
+ <p>
+Also, after doing an NMU, you have to open a new bug and include a
+patch showing all the changes you have made. Alternatively you can send
+that information to the existing bugs that are fixed by your NMU.
+The normal maintainer will either apply the patch or employ an alternate
+method of fixing the problem. Sometimes bugs are fixed independently
+upstream, which is another good reason to back out an NMU's patch.
+If the maintainer decides not to apply the NMU's patch but to release a
+new version, the maintainer needs to ensure that the new upstream version
+really fixes each problem that was fixed in the non-maintainer release.
+ <p>
+In addition, the normal maintainer should <em>always</em> retain the
+entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload.